www.firstnationstelegraph.com
Jack Beetson talks self-determination By Callum Clayton-Dixon Nganyaywana First Nations philosopher, teacher and longtime human rights campaigner Jack Beetson maintains self-determination for Aboriginal people is “not going to be delivered on a plate”. “It’s something that we have to work for and ultimately assume the position of self-determining our own futures as communities and as individuals,” said Mr Beetson, a Ngemba man and CEO of Wilcannia Aboriginal Land Council. “The community notion of selfdetermination is absolutely critical to the socio economic development of Aboriginal people. At some point, we are going to have to assume that role, and take a stand.”
Bill of Rights rather than a Treaty? Mr Beetson suggested treaties would not be the best way to go for Aboriginal people given the troubles Native Americans, Canadian First Nations and Maoris have had in terms of governments honouring these sorts of agreements. “You could have a Bill of Rights for [all] Australians, but within that is embedded a unique and distinct set of rights that belong only to Aboriginal people. Those rights might include mining royalties, a percentage of land tax and a levy on using air space. All of those sorts of things may very well come into it. At the end of the day, we have to continue to look for economic independence.”
economic independence essential to any notion of self-determination
Ngemba man and land council boss Jack Beetson says self-determination for FIrst Nations people is “not going to be delivered on a plate“. IMAGE: CAAMA
“If you’re not depending on First Nations people are government or you don’t have to living in fourth-world write reports to government saying conditions ‘this is what we’re doing, can you give us the money now’, that’s when According to Beetson, Aboriginal you’ve got true independence and people are living in a state of “fourthtrue self-termination.” worldness” as “decisions are taken out Mr Beetson proposed mining of our hands”. royalties or taxes could be “set aside “For example, when we talk about for Indigenous social and economic Native Title legislation, you can get development”. all the elders to go in and talk about “These are the sorts of innovative the historic association to country and things we’ve got to come up with the culture that it revolved around, in terms of achieving that sort of but until you get an archaeologist or independence. I honestly think there’s a social scientist to come in a support a vested interest in keeping Aboriginal what those Aboriginal people have just people dependent on government said, the courts don’t even consider it. funding. Look at the millions and Our story doesn’t exist unless someone billions of dollars that gets spent comes with a western concept of what on Aboriginal programs each year. you’re talking about to verify what There’s been very little change. You you’re saying is the truth.” can point to individuals that are living Government must use better than we were twenty or forty years ago, but communities as a bi-partisan approach to whole are still suffering from the same First Nations affairs problems that they were suffering from when I was a kid.” Mr Beetson believes Australian...
www.firstnationstelegraph.com ...governments should adopt a bi-partisan approach to Indigenous affairs so that policy “transcends the lifetime of a political party”. “They [political parties] can only come to a consensus by negotiating and working with Aboriginal people to define and shape policy. Until we get to that point, I don’t see things improving a lot.”
Constitutional reform not tangible change “My people have been here forever. Whether they say that in the Constitution or not doesn’t really matter to me. It’s not going to change the quality of life of one Aboriginal person. It’s a way of avoiding the real issues. The real issue is, how
click here to listen to audio interviews
do we sit down and have a rational discussion without having Aboriginal people becoming the political football in that discussion? We just need to get real about that discussion and move it from a thing that has a lifetime of three to four years, depending how long a particular political party might be in place, and that transcends the electoral cycle.”